1. Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies Workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies Brussels, 25/26 September 2003 Birgit Vogel Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management - Vienna birgit.vogel@bmlfuw.gv.at

2. CONTENT = PROCEDURE  Typology process  System B (macrozoobenthos, phytobenthos, fish)  Identification of Water Bodies  Following EC Guidance  Step 1: Basic delineation  Based on typology using saprobic basic conditions  Step 2: Detailed status delineation  First approaches

3. Sub-Division STATUS classes pressures, impacts surface water TYPES Sub-Division physical characteristics BASIC DELINEATION DETAILED DELINEATION NOT Heavily modified Heavily modified REFINEMENT surface water CATEGORIES lake, river etc.

4. BASIC DELINEATION BASIC DELINEATION STEP 1 TYPOLOGY

5. River Typology – System B  step 1 - a priori approach „abiotic“ typology  step 2 - a posteriori approach biological check (all biological elements)  step 3 - final definition of river types according to the results of step 2  IDENTIFICATION OF WATER BODIES

6. WFD-Annex XI: Zoogeographic Regions, Illies (1978)

7. Ecoregions of Austria Moog, Nesemann & Ofenböck (2001); Österr. Wasser- & Abfallwirtschaft Jg. 53, Heft 7/8 a priori approach: expert consensus, geo-ecological criteria Alps Balcan Hungarian Plains Carpa- thians Central Mountains

8. Descriptors  ecoregion Alps, Central Midlands, Hungarian Plains, Dinaric West-Balcan  altitude 5 classes: 1500 m  catchment area 6 classes: 10-100, 100-500, 500-1.000, 1.000-2.500, 2.500-10.000, >10.000  geology 4 classes: calcareous, crystaline, Flysch & Helveticum, tertiar and quartar Sediments  stream order (1-9)  flow regime  42 ecological river landscape-types

9. Top down result  parameters of system A  ecoregion  catchment area  altitude  geology 17 Aquatic landscape Units + 9 Large Rivers  additional parameters  flow regime  stream order  river landscape types

10. Combining top-down and bottom-up approach A posteriori - Approach  Distribution of Benthic Invertebrate Species  Multivariate Benthic Community Analysis A priori - Approach  Ecoregions  River-Landscape-Types  Aquatic Landscape Units Bioregions

11. Austrian River typology - Biological check Macroinvertebrates - Phytobenthos -Fish  Abiotic typology proved to be also valid for the aquatic community  Only minor changes were needed (splitting, combining)  highest differentiation is needed for macrozoobenthos

12. Typology Result Ecoregions nach ILLIES  26 abiotic basic types 17 type regions and 9 large rivers  biological check ---> 15 Bioregions + Donau, Rhein, large alpine rivers, March/Thaya

13. BASIC DELINEATION BASIC DELINEATION: STEP 2 TOWARDS WATER BODIES

14. TOWARDS WATER BODIES  Biological check of abiotic types finished. Adaptations performed.  Therefore: Typology in Austria finalised (each type proven by abiotic factors and biology)  Sound basis for water body delineation  Zoom into longitudinal detail of typology  Digital crossover of  Basic saprobic conditions  Altitude classes  Catchment size classes FOR EACH BIOREGION

15. Basic saprobic conditions

16. Result Basic Delineation Example: Lower Austria Differentiation using basic saprobic conditions

17. TOWARDS WATER BODIES  Result: Integrated parameters containing manifold information  Abiotic parameters (slope, sediment structure)  Biological aspects (basic trophic level, organic pollution and corresponding oxygen demand).

18. TOWARDS WATER BODIES  Map which illustrates changes of basic types over longitudinal extend  Maximum length of water bodies illustrated - defined by natural conditions  Basic number of sections (no further changes) PRODUCT = BASIC WATER BODIES

19. TOWARDS WATER BODIES  Types clearly differentiated from each other  therefore qualitive objective clear for each type  Result confirms that the criteria correctly reflect the bioregions  Sound basis for detailed delineation (status/pressures/impacts) and  later aggregation process  similar basic characteristics  plus similar pressures/impacts

20. DETAILED DELINEATION DETAILED DELINEATION: WATER BODIES BASED ON STATUS

21. DEFINITION-PROCESS DETAILED DELINEATION  Objective: Status assessments are used for final identification of water bodies  Main aspect: Identification of significant pressures and impacts on ecological status

22. DETAILED DELINEATION  Based on Basic Delineation  Step-wise definition process  Increasing information on pressures and impacts will refine the identification of water bodies  Present data are used  Continuous up-date of information and refinement of delineation until first River Basin Management Plan  Preliminary Identification of water bodies

23. INTERACTIONS Ecological Status Identification WATER BODIES MONITORING sampling stations

24. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS  Detailed status assessment  Monitoring network: many sampling stations  Aggregation of similar water bodies leads to reduction of sampling stations  Un-detailed pressure/impact identification (pressures might not be identified, good status)  Low number of sampling stations?  Assessment of impacts  Low/merged number of water bodies brings not necessarily reduction of sampling stations along  Degradation not identified? Few large water bodiesMany small water bodies

25. DETAILED DELINEATION  Manageable approach: Water body must clearly be defined by a status class water body 3 water body 1 water body 2 High status Good status Bad status  What is the most dominant factor (status) within a water body? pressures

26. Good status / pressures Szenario WB1 pressure Good status pressure Degradation?? Good status WB2 pressures (dominant)/ good status (z.B. <certain % of length) Not dominant

27. Good status (dominant) / pressure (<certain%) Szenario WB1 pressure Good status dominant

28. Example Danube

29. SUMMARY  Manageable approach and efficient  Question for „reasonable“ number of water bodies  Most dominant factors within surface water system  Aggregation of WBs – Reduction of sampling stations!!  Similarities based on types of basic delineation and same pressures  Number of basic delineation = unchanged  Number of detailed delineation = flexible; changes  stepwise refinement

30. CONCLUSION  Basic delineation finished end of 2003 for whole Austria  Detailed delineation performed during 2004 as a first step  Refined with growing monitoring/status information Workshop on Identification of Water Bodies using status criteria next week (2 catchments)